9 ms·
Far more worrying is the link between male reproductive health and 1st trimester intra-uterine PFAS exposure: https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10285 https://doi.org/
by DoingIsLearning 3y ago
Far more worrying is the link between male reproductive health and 1st trimester intra-uterine PFAS exposure:
https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10285 https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10285
If this is true then with bio accumulation we have effectively a steady degradation where for each generation Male offspring present increasingly decaying sperm counts.
- potatoman22 3y agoThat is concerning. Thankfully, if we can slow the lifetime intake of PFAS over the generations, fertility should be able to rise again.
- ChatGTP 3y agoImagine living on the edge like this permanently ? Not the kind of world I think we want to live in ?
- Eric_WVGG 3y agoThat’s the climate crisis, right? Nobody who is serious about the topic thinks it can be turned back at this point, now it’s all about mitigation.
- oezi 3y agoNo, of course we need to act and continue to act. We need to reduce the amount of Co2 emitted to prevent aggravating the crises and then we need to turn it back. The climate crises is one which will take more than one generation to fix. But the fight is worthwhile and not impossible to win.
- ChatGTP 3y agoSure, I don’t want to live in the climate crisis world either?
- milsorgen 3y agoTestosterone and sperm counts have been decimated in modern times. Plus we are already seeing the vast majority of countries heading to births below replacement rate, yes even Africa. This could get deadly serious in terms of sustaining complex systems and ensuring resource production that can maintain relative comfort and security for everyone. I don't understand why this isn't a topic being vigorously discussed, even if it's not to fix things but even just to prepare for a shortage of new workers and tax payers.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoI doubt lower sperm counts or health, if true, have anything to do with lower fertility rates. The topic gets danced around because the biggest change is women achieving independence and being able to completely control when and if they have a child, and incentivizing them to want to have children means quite a bit of wealth transfer, or rolling back their independence and access to birth control. Obviously, men would also need to be convinced to have children too, but that seems secondary.
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoIt's so ridiculously Orwellian (or should I say Atwoodian?) that I can't imagine anyone except in the most deranged countries is going to roll back access to birth control. The obvious long-term solution is that we do nothing and the fact that a desire for children is partially genetic solves the problem on its own.
- abathur 3y agoThought exercise: functionally speaking, how similar is ~compromising the quality of high-school sex education (i.e., getting rid of it, making it elective, giving parents any control or veto over the curriculum, converting it to an abstinence-only curriculum, ensuring it's taught by prudes, etc.) to rolling back access to birth control? (Edit: not really directed at parent poster. Just something you made me think of...)
- refurb 3y agoThose confidence intervals though.. lower sperm concentration (−8%, 95% CI: −16%, −1%) total sperm count (−10%, 95% CI: −17%, −2%) higher proportion of nonprogressive and immotile sperm (5%; 95% CI: 1%, 8%) Basically all the 95% confidence intervals almost overlap with "no effect".
- londons_explore 3y agoThree 95% confidence intervals not quite overlapping with no effect is plenty evidence to believe this is true unless someone does a bigger study showing otherwise...
- kriops 3y agoCorrect, but if and only if every involved party is completely trustworthy. Which would be naive, and is why independent replication is important.
- refurb 3y agoFor a retrospective analysis? No. And for a study showing an effect of 1% change (maybe) That’s no different than zero. No, it’s not anything close to “believe this is true”.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- steve1977 3y agoNature is trying hard to get rid of us, that little bastard...
- furyg3 3y agoMore like we are trying hard to get rid of ourselves...
- amelius 3y agoMore like some people in power who care only about profits are trying hard to get rid of us...
- hollerith 3y agoWhich is it? They care only about profits? Or they also care to get rid of us if possible? If they pursue profits in a reckless negligent manner that results in our death, that's not trying to get rid of us.
- amelius 3y agoThey are blinded by greed and don't look very far into the future.